Claim or Concession

Law 69 B2 states:
Agreement with a claim or concession may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C:
2. If a player has agreed to the loss of a trick his side would likely have won had the play continued.

Law 71B states:
A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:
B: If a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.

I would imagine that the Director would only cancel a concession under Law 71B if the player concerned asks for it. How is this different from withdrawing a concession under Law 69?

Secondly, presumably there is a subtle difference between 'loss of a trick his side would likely have won had the play continued' and 'a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the cards'. This difference escapes me - if you cannot lose a trick then you must win it!

Grateful if anybody can clarify this for me.

Comments

  • I think you are mis-reading Law 69B2.
    It is the agreement that may be withdrawn, not the concession that may be withdrawn.
    Are you reading it as

    {Agreement with a claim} or concession may be withdrawn ...

    ?
    I read it as

    Agreement with a {claim or concession} may be withdrawn ...

    There is text in the White Book about Law 69 v Law 71.

    'a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the cards' is the _normal _test for claims :)

    'loss of a trick his side would likely have won had the play continued' is a different test, and not so well understood

  • @BarkerBridgeTD said:
    I think you are mis-reading Law 69B2.
    It is the agreement that may be withdrawn, not the concession that may be withdrawn.
    Are you reading it as

    {Agreement with a claim} or concession may be withdrawn ...

    ?
    I read it as

    Agreement with a {claim or concession} may be withdrawn ...

    There is text in the White Book about Law 69 v Law 71.

    'a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the cards' is the _normal _test for claims :)

    'loss of a trick his side would likely have won had the play continued' is a different test, and not so well understood

    I was reading it as 'Agreement with a claim or (agreement with a) concession may be withdrawn...'

    Very often a claim and a concession happen at the same time, e.g declarer has six cards left, claims four tricks and gives up two. Would you end up applying one law in a situation where an opponent withdraws the agreement and maintains that his side would have won three tricks, and the other law in a different situation where the declarer maintains later that he would have lost only one trick, not two? If so, what would be the logic behind applying two different tests to establish the loss or otherwise of a trick?

  • The difference between Law 69 and Law 71 is which side is conceding/agreeing/withdrawing.

    If one side makes a claim/concession and the other side agrees and then that side withdraws agreement to the claim-or-concession, then Law 69B applies.

    If one side make a concession and the other side agrees and then the first (conceding) side want to un-concede some tricks, then Law 71 applies.

Sign In or Register to comment.